This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Originally Posted by Cephus

I don't even know what "helping themselves" means. They have a right to self determination and how they want to live their lives. They have chosen a theocratic tribal society. It isn't the same as a western democracy but they have no interest in having a western democracy. In fact, it's the west's meddling, trying to impose a western society on them, that has caused most of the problems. Take Saudi Arabia. They were doing just fine before WWI when the west arbitrarily picked one tribe to take charge because they wanted a single group to deal with. They didn't do that to themselves, it was imposed on them from the west.

The actions that they are taking against each other is their choice. Noone is forcing them to do those things. And the middle east and Saudi were not doing just fine.

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Originally Posted by ecofarm

Sovereignty belongs to the people and not a tyrant. Where tyrants rule, the people are not sovereign. Protecting the sovereignty of a tyrant that has taken sovereignty from the people is intellectually pathetic garbage.

Good, and they can have a ****ing revolution instead of call for daddy to come in.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Originally Posted by Sherman123

1. I tried to address these in sequence.

Hopefully you will be able to follow my response without your quotes.

1. In semi-modern times, the 1920's or so, the US began following the UK's lead in the Middle East. Early days Britain cared more about/for oil in the region than the US did. The US of course was present in the region a bit earlier with WWI and all that. It was perhaps the very beginning of the passing of the empire torch from the UK to the US.

If we jump to 1947 (I remember that year because it seems that 1947 was a year of note for so many events, many beginnings; right after WWII.) The UK and the West, most especially the US, agreed to partition Palestine while promising to support the establishment of an Arab nation. Most of Palestine went to Jews to become Israel. Palestinians got shafted on the deal in many ways. The US followed Britain's lead but very strongly supported Israel. This occurred as the US was becoming the dominant world power. That fact and America's actions did not go unnoticed by the people of the Middle East.

In short the West lied to and screwed over Muslim people and nations as the US began to take great interest in the region. When pressed by the Arab world to fulfill its promise regarding Palestine the UK and the US orchestrated a "study committee" at the UN. The Arab world has been waiting for what they were promised ever since. Meanwhile the US has become a growing presence in the region. Often - albeit not always - the US has sided with Israel in regional disputes.

Coups and attempted coups in the region: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Eqypt. The US has always had a go to guy ready to replace the deposed leader. In some cases such as Iran the US has deposed popular, democratically elected leaders. Yet we lecture the region about democracy.

Attempted assassinations: Saddam Hussein and Abdul Nasser?

It isn't difficult to understand why people in the region remain pissed off. We have continually screwed with them, lied to them, screwed with their governments and we won't leave. If the situation was reversed there is no question Americans would be apoplectic and screaming for bloody revenge.

As to being left with terrible choices in the region, how about no choice? The one thing we have not done is left the region the hell alone. The region doesn't belong to us. We don't have a dog in the fight.

2. Without US involvement in the region it would have been the region's issues to resolve among themselves. We have no business being involved. Without US involvement in the region over the last 70 years we might have been looking at a much different region. Without US involvement in the invasion of Iraq, without our continued presence in Afghanistan the region may not have burst into ball of fundamentalist hell. The region may well have been more peaceful than it is now.

3. If they make me King of the US tomorrow (don't put your money on it at this point) I would initiate sweeping changes in the way we look at energy consumption. No nation can needlessly was oil like the United States. Canadians aren't far behind. Do we need oil? Yes, of course. Do we use it wisely? We use it wildly. We could be/should be much less dependent upon oil. As a nation most Americans would rather have a relatively few Americans kill other people on their behalf so that Americans can continue to piss away oil.

Oil is not an infinite resource. People have died and people will die so that Americans can continue to live large. As a nation we are acting irresponsibly and I doubt we want to face the karmic debt.

"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf

When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy. ~Dave Barry

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

I think we have, and for decades to come. For good or for bad, and as imperfect as it was, it was somewhat stable. Now, it's chaos.

Discuss.

Yes and no.

The "screwing up" of the Middle East started long before the US even cared about the region. With the end of the Ottoman Empire, new countries were created based on French and British colonial views and "Christian" views and not the tribal formations on the ground. This is the root cause of many of the problems today. While the Ottoman Empire were bastards the last 50-100 years of their Empire, they did manage to keep the region relatively peaceful by establishing administrative areas based on tribal and religious borders for the most part. The French and British screwed that up big time.

Then came Atturk. The single biggest mistake Atturk made was to abolish the Caliphate in 1924. It basically removed the "Pope" type figure/system from the Islamic world, mean the age old tribal and religious conflicts that the Ottomans and the Caliphate had put in check for centuries, were allowed slowly to brew up again.

And then there was of course Israel... the elephant in the room. Forcing the creation of a new nation against the will of the majority of the population is a bad idea, and especially in part of the world that is coveted by 2 major religions and one minor one. It is the recipe for disaster.

The US became involved with the formation of Israel and has never looked back in its meddling. It has made a bad situation worse and worse, especially since 2003. It started with the Suez Canal disaster, and the cutting off the balls of the British and French. Then it continued with the support on one hand Israel and the other hand Iran. This drove Syria and Egypt into the hands of the Soviets. The new "false" nations were only held together by strong men, often supported by the US or Soviets.

Then 2003 came, Iraq was invaded and all hell has broken loose ever since... and THAT is certainly the US fault.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Originally Posted by Risky Thicket

If we jump to 1947 (I remember that year because it seems that 1947 was a year of note for so many events, many beginnings; right after WWII.) The UK and the West, most especially the US, agreed to partition Palestine while promising to support the establishment of an Arab nation. Most of Palestine went to Jews to become Israel.

The British mandate of Palestine covered what is today Jordan as well. The split was into two Arab states and a single Jewish state. Of the territory known as Palestine itself the majority went to the Jewish people, yes, but of the land given to the Palestinian-Jews the majority was in the Negev desert, a lower-quality territory that is literally dead in its majority and until this day not much was done with it, while the Palestinian-Arabs received most of northern Israel, a higher-quality territory.

Thus Palestinians got shafted on the deal in many ways.
(...)
In short the West lied to and screwed over Muslim people and nations as the US began to take great interest in the region.

They weren't. The problem was that the Palestinian-Arabs' leadership and the surrounding Arab nations were not willing to accept any deal that allowed a Jewish state in the land, not that they felt that this deal specifically was unfair.

When pressed by the Arab world to fulfill its promise regarding Palestine the UK and the US orchestrated a "study committee" at the UN. The Arab world has been waiting for what they were promised ever since.

What, precisely, are you referring to by "have been waiting for what they were promised ever since"? The international community promised two Arab states and a Jewish state in the lands of the British Mandate of Palestine, yes. Did they not fulfill that promise? How so? Jordan exists, Israel exists. Palestine could exist as well if not for their very own actions, you will agree. So where was the promise not seen through?

Meanwhile the US has become a growing presence in the region. Often - albeit not always - the US has sided with Israel in regional disputes.

And so did the rest of the West, not just the US. In fact Western Europe was supporting Israel since its establishment, the US only started providing financial and military support since the Six-Day war. How, exactly, was it a wrong move to side with a Western democracy over dictatorships and theocracies with Soviet funding pray tell? And that's without even approaching the issue of who was right or wrong here.

Coups and attempted coups in the region: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Eqypt. The US has always had a go to guy ready to replace the deposed leader. In some cases such as Iran the US has deposed popular, democratically elected leaders. Yet we lecture the region about democracy.

The Iranian coup was probably the stupidest move in the CIA's history, no arguments here.

It isn't difficult to understand why people in the region remain pissed off. We have continually screwed with them, lied to them, screwed with their governments and we won't leave. If the situation was reversed there is no question Americans would be apoplectic and screaming for bloody revenge.

(...)

2. Without US involvement in the region it would have been the region's issues to resolve among themselves. We have no business being involved. Without US involvement in the region over the last 70 years we might have been looking at a much different region. Without US involvement in the invasion of Iraq, without our continued presence in Afghanistan the region may not have burst into ball of fundamentalist hell. The region may well have been more peaceful than it is now.

Islamic fundamentalism in the region precedes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They would have reached that point regardless of US intervention unfortunately, it was the path these societies have taken, not some path they were pushed into by the US as you're painting it.

Last edited by Apocalypse; 06-09-15 at 06:38 AM.

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Originally Posted by PeteEU

The "screwing up" of the Middle East started long before the US even cared about the region. With the end of the Ottoman Empire, new countries were created based on French and British colonial views and "Christian" views and not the tribal formations on the ground. This is the root cause of many of the problems today. While the Ottoman Empire were bastards the last 50-100 years of their Empire, they did manage to keep the region relatively peaceful by establishing administrative areas based on tribal and religious borders for the most part. The French and British screwed that up big time.

I agree but that's more true in Africa's case than it is in the case of the Middle East.

And then there was of course Israel... the elephant in the room. Forcing the creation of a new nation against the will of the majority of the population is a bad idea, and especially in part of the world that is coveted by 2 major religions and one minor one. It is the recipe for disaster.

The formation itself did not ensure a war will happen, it is the position of the Arab nations that a Jewish state is unacceptable in the land that is the reason for the wars. The majority population might have been non-Jewish but in the lands that were given to the Palestinian-Jews the majority were actually Jewish.

The US became involved with the formation of Israel and has never looked back in its meddling. It has made a bad situation worse and worse, especially since 2003. It started with the Suez Canal disaster, and the cutting off the balls of the British and French. Then it continued with the support on one hand Israel and the other hand Iran. This drove Syria and Egypt into the hands of the Soviets. The new "false" nations were only held together by strong men, often supported by the US or Soviets.

This assertion is false, the Soviets pushed Egypt and Syria into Soviet hands and nobody else did. They offered them money and weapons that nobody else offered them, why wouldn't they join hands under the Soviet umbrella?

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."